Haryana

Sonipat

315/2012

RAMPHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BURE CEMENT STORE - Opp.Party(s)

ROOPA KAUSHIK

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                                     Complaint No.315 of 2012

Instituted on: 04.07.2012                    

Date of order: 23.10.2015

 

 

Ram Phal son of Ram Chander, r/o village Gangana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1 M/s Bura Cement Store, VPO Siwana Mal, tehsil Safidon Distt. Jind, authorized dealer of Ambuja cement.

2.Anand son of Dharma r/o VPO Gangana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat (building material supplier).

3.Manufacturer of Ambuja Cement, Particulars to be furnished by respondent no.1.

 

                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri RS Chauhan, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Manoj Phaugat, Adv.for respondent no.1 and 2.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased 80 bags of Ambuja Cement at the rate of Rs.280/- per bag for total Rs.22400/- vide bill no.550 dated 5.3.2012 from respondent no.1 and the complainant got constructed a verandah by using the said cement and spent Rs.2,70,000/- on the said construction.  But just after the completion of the construction work, it was found that the supporting beams started bowing and structure got cracked. The pasting grip of the cement was very poor. The complainant approached the respondents, but of no use.  The cement supplied by the respondents was of very poor and inferior quality and thus, he has suffered huge financial loss of Rs.2,70,000/- and unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondent no.1 and 2 in their joint written statement has submitted that the allegations leveled against them are altogether wrong and false.   The cement supplied by the respondents was of very good quality. There may be the fault of the Contractor/Mason and for the lapses on their part, the respondents cannot be held responsible n any manner.   Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief or compensation from the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by  the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he has suffered a huge loss of Rs.2,70,000/- due to supply of inferior quality of cement by the respondents.

         The respondents have controverted the pleadings and have submitted that all the allegations leveled against them by the complainant are wrong and false.

         The perusal of the case file shows that Shri Manjeet Kumar ASDE was appointed as local commissioner in the above mentioned complaint who has submitted his report before this Forum on 13.8.2015.

         As per the report of local commissioner, from the report tested for cement, concrete and sand contents, it is found that ratio of cement, sand and coarse aggregate is 1:2.25:4.52 and 1 x 1.52 x3.04 by weight.  Cement ratio in the concrete is appropriate.  NO cement bag was found at the site and it was not possible to check the quality of cement.  The verandah for which the cement was used, was constructed in March, 2012.

         From the report of the local commissioner and from the report of  Delhi Test House, one thing is clear that no cement was checked by the lab.  The report of Delhi Test House is based on the debris collected by the local commissioner.  The cement was purchased and used in the month of March, 2012, whereas the debris was checked in the lab of Delhi Test House on 5.8.2015 i.e. after a lapse of more-than three years and five months.  From the report of local commissioner also, it is gathered that the local commissioner no where has stated that the cement was of inferior quality.  So, in our view, when it is not proved that the cement was of sub-standard or inferior quality, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the respondents.  The complainant has failed to prove his case against the respondents and thus, it is held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the present complaint is devoid of any merit and thus, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

        Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 23.10.2015